Author Topic: Help reading baptism record, please  (Read 594 times)

Offline Stumped!

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Help reading baptism record, please
« on: Friday 23 May 14 12:09 BST (UK) »
This is an extract from the 1752 baptism register for Loppington.
Samuel the son of Thomas Byrch & Ann his wife
was baptised (? ? ?) October 19th ?
the Church Nover 6th 1752

I would be grateful if someone could fill in the blanks for me, please

Peter

Offline Galium

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,142
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading baptism record, please
« Reply #1 on: Friday 23 May 14 12:29 BST (UK) »
Sorry I can't make the words out, but the likely sense of it is that the child was baptised privately on the 19th October, and publicly received into the Church on 6th November.  Usually, the christening ceremony includes both the baptism of the child and its being received as a member of the congregation, but where the child is baptised at home (because it was not expected to survive long) the christening can be completed at a later date.
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Annie65115

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,255
  • HOLYLAND regd with guild of one name studies
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading baptism record, please
« Reply #2 on: Friday 23 May 14 12:32 BST (UK) »
I'd agree - to me it looks like "baptised in a ???property October 19, certify'd in the church Nov 6"
Bradbury (Sedgeley, Bilston, Warrington)
Cooper (Sedgeley, Bilston)
Kilner/Kilmer (Leic, Notts)
Greenfield (Liverpool)
Holyland (Anywhere and everywhere, also Holiland Holliland Hollyland)
Pryce/Price (Welshpool, Liverpool)
Rawson (Leicester)
Upton (Desford, Leics)
Partrick (Vera and George, Leicester)
Marshall (Westmorland, Cheshire/Leicester)

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,827
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading baptism record, please
« Reply #3 on: Friday 23 May 14 12:34 BST (UK) »
I agree it must be a private baptism but it is annoying not to be able to read it because it looks like an interesting one.  Baptised in a ______ of __________?
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)


Offline Galium

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,142
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading baptism record, please
« Reply #4 on: Friday 23 May 14 12:43 BST (UK) »
Having a google around, "in a case of necessity" seems to be a likely phrase.
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,827
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading baptism record, please
« Reply #5 on: Friday 23 May 14 12:45 BST (UK) »
Having a google around, "in a case of necessity" seems to be a likely phrase.

Ah yes - that does look likely.
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)

Offline Stumped!

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading baptism record, please
« Reply #6 on: Friday 23 May 14 12:59 BST (UK) »
Many thanks for the replies and ideas.

If they did think that he wasn't going to survive, then they were happily mistaken.
He lived until January, 1841.

Peter